Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction over Facts

Here’s a question. Article III, Section Two of the Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact . . . .” The power of factual review was given largely because in maritime cases factual disputes were often critical and resolved on appeal (at least that’s what people said in the 1780s).

What I’m wondering is when was the last time the Justices formally reversed or vacated an opinion because its factual findings were clearly erroneous? This probably happened with some regularity before certiorari jurisdiction was firmly established in the 1920s, but I’m not sure. Any thoughts?

Share

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

Is there a suggestion that “both as to law and fact” permits a trial de novo with evidence presented to the Court beyond what was presented in the trial court? Or does “fact” relate to what the evidence permits under applicable law to constitute a relevant fact?